- From: Thomas Passin <list1@t...>
- To: "xml-dev@l..." <xml-dev@l...>
- Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 12:15:00 -0500
"Arborescent, semi-structured" data was covered pretty well, long before
json, by Abiteboul and Bunemanin in
"Data on the Web: From Relations to Semistructured Data and XML"
The notation used there was nearly the same as what would become json,
IIRC.
On 2/16/2017 11:16 AM, Ghislain Fourny wrote:
I agree with Eliot. Both XML and JSON are relevant and both have
their own strengths. What matters in the end is that this is all
arborescent, semi-structured data, and that both, in the end, need
the same kind of technology (parsing, validating, transforming,
querying, updating, storing, etc).
- References:
- What are the practical, negative consequences of thinking thatattributes are metadata?
- From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
- Re: What are the practical, negative consequences ofthinking that attributes are metadata?
- From: Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@g...>
- Re: What are the practical, negative consequences ofthinking that attributes are metadata?
- From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
- RE: What are the practical, negative consequences ofthinking that attributes are metadata?
- From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
- Re: What are the practical, negative consequences ofthinking that attributes are metadata?
- From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@a...>
- Re: What are the practical, negative consequences of thinkingthat attributes are metadata?
- From: Thomas Passin <list1@t...>
- Re: What are the practical, negative consequences ofthinking that attributes are metadata?
- From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
- Re: What are the practical, negative consequences ofthinking that attributes are metadata?
- From: Eliot Kimber <ekimber@c...>
- RE: What are the practical, negative consequences ofthinking that attributes are metadata?
- From: "Ghislain Fourny" <gfourny@i...>
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
|
Cart
